Stephen Breyer a year ago opined that SCOTUS was apolitical

[Torie]

In a book no less, a dry as dust book apparently, but then I admire Breyer most for his temperament, rather than his prose or brain*.  * Not that he does not have a most admirable brain to boot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/books/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-authority-peril-politics.html

And now on to my opinion, which might well drop my FF rating down from 80% (yes, I did read that thread and thank you), by 20 points or more.

With the possible exceptions of Alito (he comes from a family of Pub politicians who knew how to play the game right out of the box), and maybe Thomas (beyond his hatred of abortion and substantive due process, out of anger (his temperament is not Breyer's), his desire to own the libs and punish them for what they did to him, whatever that may be), while Breyer may no longer agree with himself, I agree with his former self.

Sure, Justices have their notions about how to weight the competing considerations in deciding a case (and there are almost always competing considerations, and indeed legal competing considerations as to the interpretation of text and context), in the tough cases SCOTUS takes on. The easy cases are disposed of below, and they deny cert. And yes, true, they are not as candid as they should be about disclosing such approaches as they should be, because that is not the right road to take to get confirmed.

But are they partisan hacks? Absolutely not in my opinion. I think they take their oath of office seriously, and do their best, as they see it. It is not dishonorable to have different interpretative methodologies. And they do care about their legal reputations and legacy. And at the SCOTUS level most certainly, they are very talented. They even impress me, on both sides, and I am hard to impress, trust me. I try to be polite and kind, but that does not mean I impress easily.

So Justice Breyer, I agree largely if not necessarily entirely with your former self at least. And I dissent from the haughty and somewhat arrogant tone of the author of the NYT article, who seems to reside on  Mt. Olympus, at least in the author's own mind. And I will miss you, and your gentle and civil soul, in a place that is anything but either of them, as we head to a place that I viscerally recoil from.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

This is pure projection and hogwash.

Did you actually read any of these guys’ opinions or are you just taking their protestations of following the law wherever it leads at face value?
They would lead you to very different conclusions.

[Torie]

To those whom it may concern:

I do read important SCOTUS opinions in substantial controversy word for word, in their entirety. It is a hobby of mine.

So whatever my errant quotient as to this matter, it is not due to ignorance (other than than that, that may be attributable  to potential brain damage).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

But are they partisan hacks? Absolutely not in my opinion. I think they take their oath of office seriously, and do their best, as they see it. It is not dishonorable to have different interpretative methodologies. And they do care about their legal reputations and legacy. And at the SCOTUS level most certainly, they are very talented. They even impress me, on both sides, and I am hard to impress, trust me. I try to be polite and kind, but that does not mean I impress easily.

They lied to Congress. They're hacks.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When Alito talked about judicial restraint, he meant that things he didn't like should be judicially restrained.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

To those whom it may concern:

I do read important SCOTUS opinions in substantial controversy word for word, in their entirety. It is a hobby of mine.

So whatever my errant quotient as to this matter, it is not due to ignorance (other than than that, that may be attributable  to potential brain damage).

It’s only way I could see reading Shelby and deciding these are serious men doing serious legal thinking.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Repeat after me: The Supreme Court is, has always been, and will always be a political body.

It's less political than the Congress or the Presidency, but please do not mistake that for an actual apolitical body.

[Virginiá]

I like to think that under ideal circumstances, it seeks to be apolitical, but depending on what justices are currently serving and what their internal motivations are, that effort could be significant, or minimal at best. Right now, I would say... very minimal.

Justices can coat their opinions in all sorts of legalese all they want, but what cases they choose and the effects their rulings have needs to be considered. I see a court that very reliably picks and rules on cases that will favor the Republican Party, or whose rulings come, say, one vote shy of doing such ("reliably" is not 100%). I'm just talking about election/campaign law, too. There's a whole other argument regarding other policies, such as Roe.

I mean, what should one expect? Brett Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr, and worked on GWB's 2000 campaign and for him afterwards. This guy has been an actual political operative. It's how he thinks. People don't just turn that kind of thinking on and off. People here should know. Many of us have worked directly on campaigns, in state/national party offices, and in state/national legislative staff roles. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, and I'm sure some issues bring out more of their inner political animal than others, but, you know, it is what it is.

[Nyvin]

Kavanaugh and Alito are just political hacks out to benefit the Republican Party and the super wealthy at every turn.   They've been performing that same role their entire lives, being confirmed to the Supreme Court just made their reach much more powerful.   

Thomas just seems to be a deranged fanatic who's completely devoted to his governing philosophy without any doubts or questioning (hence why he never ask any questions)

I don't know as much about Barret and Gorsuch but they at least seem like a small step up from those three.

[Pericles]

But are they partisan hacks? Absolutely not in my opinion. I think they take their oath of office seriously, and do their best, as they see it. It is not dishonorable to have different interpretative methodologies. And they do care about their legal reputations and legacy. And at the SCOTUS level most certainly, they are very talented. They even impress me, on both sides, and I am hard to impress, trust me. I try to be polite and kind, but that does not mean I impress easily.

They lied to Congress. They're hacks.

If Senators chose to take that as promises that those nominees would not overturn Roe, that's on them. Also, Gorsuch appeared to be saying the Court would not be imposing a fetal personhood law on the nation, which they didn't, Dobbs left it to the states and maybe Congress.

[ProgressiveModerate]

But are they partisan hacks? Absolutely not in my opinion. I think they take their oath of office seriously, and do their best, as they see it. It is not dishonorable to have different interpretative methodologies. And they do care about their legal reputations and legacy. And at the SCOTUS level most certainly, they are very talented. They even impress me, on both sides, and I am hard to impress, trust me. I try to be polite and kind, but that does not mean I impress easily.

They lied to Congress. They're hacks.

Technically they didn’t lie, they just carefully choose their words. Most of them basically said Row v Wade is precedent and they value precedent. That doesn’t mean Roe v Wade can’t be struck down. Precedent is only a factor to take into account, not an end all be all.

What makes this so challenging though is none of us truly know what is going on inside the justices head as they make their rulings. Are they doing them with the intent to favour their own benefit? Are they really trying heir best to be impartial? How open minded are they to the side they are predisposed to be less favourable to in a given case? This is the stuff that’s impossible to know and hence “hackishness” is only speculative.

The only justice I would truly say can be called a “hack” would be Thomas given he’s said a lot of crazy things that aren’t even based on reality to justify his positions. Also the fact he never asks questions suggests he is not very open minded or curious to understand both sides. However, all the other justices tend to base their reasoning on judicial logic even if we sometimes disagree with it. Some of that logic may be associated with a liberal or conservative view of thinking but that doenst necessarily make them hacks.

If anything, society is the one that makes the court legitimate or not. The court may seem illigimate to you because they do rulings you disagree with. It doesn’t mean to those justices that wasn’t truly the right ruling.

Overall for this reason the SCOTUS is a weird institution but one we must learn to live with nonetheless

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Roberts in the confirmation hearing already said Griswold and contraceptive were in the constitution, and declined to answer Roe what will his ruling would be, no one expects porn and contraceptive are gonna be overturned but we need D's to stay in charge in Nov at least in the Senate as a check on this Crt, if Rs get total control they can deny Biden Crt appointments like they did Obama despite that deal struck by McConnell and Biden

D's are gonna maintain control of the S all our incumbents are leading, and PA and WI are on the bubble if Warnock goes to a Runoff, that's 51 and Rs have 3 other vulnerable seats OH, PA and FL and IA and MO and AK are weak links 51/55 seats is the estimate but of course if we hang onto the H we will win wave insurance seats

This Crt is right of the D party but we are a center right country and when gay marriage was on the ballot in 20o4 and 2016 D's lost those Prez Elections

Rs aren't holding onto all their vulnerable seats especially the open ones in PA, OH and NC where Blks are the MOE IN THOSE STATES

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

But are they partisan hacks? Absolutely not in my opinion. I think they take their oath of office seriously, and do their best, as they see it. It is not dishonorable to have different interpretative methodologies. And they do care about their legal reputations and legacy. And at the SCOTUS level most certainly, they are very talented. They even impress me, on both sides, and I am hard to impress, trust me. I try to be polite and kind, but that does not mean I impress easily.

They lied to Congress. They're hacks.

Technically they didn’t lie, they just carefully choose their words. Most of them basically said Row v Wade is precedent and they value precedent. That doesn’t mean Roe v Wade can’t be struck down. Precedent is only a factor to take into account, not an end all be all.

What makes this so challenging though is none of us truly know what is going on inside the justices head as they make their rulings. Are they doing them with the intent to favour their own benefit? Are they really trying heir best to be impartial? How open minded are they to the side they are predisposed to be less favourable to in a given case? This is the stuff that’s impossible to know and hence “hackishness” is only speculative.

The only justice I would truly say can be called a “hack” would be Thomas given he’s said a lot of crazy things that aren’t even based on reality to justify his positions. Also the fact he never asks questions suggests he is not very open minded or curious to understand both sides. However, all the other justices tend to base their reasoning on judicial logic even if we sometimes disagree with it. Some of that logic may be associated with a liberal or conservative view of thinking but that doenst necessarily make them hacks.

If anything, society is the one that makes the court legitimate or not. The court may seem illigimate to you because they do rulings you disagree with. It doesn’t mean to those justices that wasn’t truly the right ruling.

Overall for this reason the SCOTUS is a weird institution but one we must learn to live with nonetheless

You guys keep saying this, but what is it based on? That there is allot of legalese and purple prose in Supreme Court decisions?
I especially hate the ‘well you may disagree with them’ logic because that’s just functioning as a get out of reality free card for you. If we can’t judge them by their opinions, what are we supposed to base the alleged legitimacy of the court on? Because as far as I can see, all you guys have is wishes and vibes.

Their opinions by and large follow no consistent legal logic on any case which has salience for either the operation of government or national politics. We now live in a world where any operation of the federal government, from legislation to executive actions to banal regulatory department functions, is subject to endless frivolous lawsuits designed to see whether six Fox News commentators decide to invent a new doctrine to nullify anything that doesn’t align with their political preferences.
But even if we do accept your premise that these are very serious men going wherever their serious lawyer logic take them, so what? A Supreme Court lead by a legal philosophy in which new doctrines are created in the fly and the rules as understood by congress, lower courts, and the legal profession writ large are turned in their head entirely because the justices in question think the last century of case law don’t count in their new world isn’t a legitimate court anyway. Because, you know Stare Decisis is actually really important to the whole operation.

[SWE]

The Supreme Court as an apolitical institution is a religious view. It's incoherent, contradictory nonsense that contradicts both basic common sense and all empirical evidence, but you're expected to take it on faith alone. Stephen Breyer may as well have said the earth is flat, it would have the same impact on his credibility

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is apolitical banning abortion or SSM isn't out of the mainstream, but banning porn or Contraceptive is that's why Ds are favored to keep the Senate as a check on the Crt, but Planned Parenthood was affirmed 6/3 and Congress hasn't passed any new progressive laws like DC statehood, or Voting Rights that the Crt has struck down thru Judicial review yet, due to the Filibuster

Remember when SSM was on the line in 2004)2016 as well as Gun Rights Kerry and Hillary lost

If they ban gay marriage they aren't banning sex it's just you can't legally get married to same sex


Why do you think the polls stayed the same since abortion, although I am optimistic and pre election polls arent Election results because Contraceptive or interracial marriage or porn isn't ban, killing babies is totally different and the develop vaccines from embryos not just fetal tissue

[Torie]

My opinion is that both sides of the jurisprudential divide tend to want the doctrine of stare decisis to be asymmetrical. Stare decisis is most problematical when it comes to Constitutional as opposed to statutory or regulatory interpretations. Is it more aggressive and out there to make an erroneous interpretation of the Constitutional (most Constitutional legal scholars still think the Roe decision was erroneous), or to overturn the erroneous decision?

The answer of course is that it depends, but how the two sides parse the "depends" is itself typically asymmetrical. There are no angels in this business, ideological, legal or otherwise. Awareness of that at least can mitigate hubris.